Development of the US East of the Appalachians

Lets say that for whatever reason, losing the Revolution and being forbidden by the British, a Stronger New France, a massively powerful Indian Nation, what would be the Development of the 13 States/Colonies if they were kept east of the Appalachains? Toward population, slavery, economics for the south, etc etc.
 
Not sure it would have been possible to keep pioneers and frontiersmen out of Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio. Daniel Boone had already blazed the trail by 1778, and by 1790, Kentucky had almost 100,000 people living there. So even if the territory to the West of the mountains is off limits to Americans, they are going to emigrate anyway.

However, if the territory can't be incorporated into the US/13 colonies, then I think the hemmed in country stagnates over the long term. Most immigrants that came to America in the late 18th and early 19th century came for the land and settled in rural areas, with many going West soon after arriving. So the country would have far fewer immigrants. Plus, the high birth rates were tied to a rural/farm culture where children were needed to work the farm, so I think a hemmed in America also has lower birthrates as well. While the cities of the Coast probably continue to grow and industry develops faster, the economy as a whole is much smaller and more stagnant. Slavery cannot prosper either as cotton and tobacco crops wear out the soil and so neither crop will do well after a few seasons, and with no new land to move to, the plantations lose, and slavery will lose its efficiency - and die a slow death.

If France keeps Louisiana, I think you could see lots of immigrants from America and Europe going to settle along the river valleys. Native Americans would fare much better, probably. And somebody eventually settles California. Is it the Spanish, or some other people.
 
Not sure it would have been possible to keep pioneers and frontiersmen out of Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio. Daniel Boone had already blazed the trail by 1778, and by 1790, Kentucky had almost 100,000 people living there. So even if the territory to the West of the mountains is off limits to Americans, they are going to emigrate anyway.
Pretty much. There are going to be a ton of frontiersman moving out that way whether it's against the law or not, and even if America does lose the Revolution, they're unlikely to be capable of reigning it all in, or even most of it for that matter. I would expect a lot of Boer-style rebel republics shooting up in the near west, but they will be weaker and more xenophobic than their OTL counterparts(which did exist in NA in large numbers) due to more British support for the Natives and would lead to a pretty divergent west. I can't quite guess how it is.

Of course, don't think that this will be a happy go lucky place. In reality, it'll just be a far more localized, but possibly more brutal continuation of the frontier warfare between settlers and natives that had characterized the time before that. The only difference is now you don't have the East Coast explicitly on the side of those rebel republics so they can be absorbed. You might have the British(or a different American government I suppose would be possible, albeit much harder) playing them off each other in a situation similar to India and South Africa. Make for interesting politics, it would.

Eventually, though, the British/their colonies will be founding their own settler colonies in the west. It's just a matter of where and what happens to the Natives nearby that will make the difference.

However, if the territory can't be incorporated into the US/13 colonies, then I think the hemmed in country stagnates over the long term. Most immigrants that came to America in the late 18th and early 19th century came for the land and settled in rural areas, with many going West soon after arriving. So the country would have far fewer immigrants. Plus, the high birth rates were tied to a rural/farm culture where children were needed to work the farm, so I think a hemmed in America also has lower birthrates as well. While the cities of the Coast probably continue to grow and industry develops faster, the economy as a whole is much smaller and more stagnant. Slavery cannot prosper either as cotton and tobacco crops wear out the soil and so neither crop will do well after a few seasons, and with no new land to move to, the plantations lose, and slavery will lose its efficiency - and die a slow death.
Pretty much. Without all that open land to the west being offered there will also be a lot less reason for Europeans to emigrate to NA. Sure, plenty will, but not nearly as much as the OTL waves, and so the economy's going to be a lot smaller ITTL.

If France keeps Louisiana, I think you could see lots of immigrants from America and Europe going to settle along the river valleys. Native Americans would fare much better, probably. And somebody eventually settles California. Is it the Spanish, or some other people.
Spanish or *Mexicans would be the most likely. Maybe most of the Irish, Italian or German immigrants that would go to the USA IOTL end up there to give the area a more unique flavor.
 
I see the Italians going to Argentina and Brazil instead of Louisiana, where there were policies to attract these particualar immigrants.

If there's no ARW, we may see a different French Revolution, which may mean there's no Napoleonic Code, a maybe this causes a big population growth in France, which may mean a nice amount of immigrants go to Louisiana.

Also without loosing most of their North American colonies, the British may not focus as much as they did in OTL in Australia and New Zealand. Maybe France gets New Zealand and many Frenchmen settle there, or Australia is divided between UK, France and the Neatherlands.
 
California- bare in mind the US' claim there was just carried over from the British claim. They didn't entirely pull manifest destiny out of their bums.
England had a claim on California as Nova Albion since Francis Drake. Its likely the Mexians/Spanish will get there first but its perfectly possible for Britain to decide it wants it. Or some colonists to stir up trouble and drag Britain in to help them.
 

Skokie

Banned
The Appalachians are glorified molehills. The much more numerous and land-hungry Yanks would soon overwhelm the French or Brits or whomever.
 
Well, I guess at some point the UK can give up and allow settlement to the West. As they have the Canadian praires Yanks may go there. Then, it's all Oregon Area, obviously British, which is another place to go. We also have most of Ontario. We may even see some Yanks coming from Oregon and creating their own republic in California. So that may give time to the French to settle Louisiana.

Other thing that I thought was that if France manages to settle Louisiana to the point that it's clearly populated by Frenchmen(i.e 2.5 or 3 million Frenchs there), but Yanks start migrating into some of the more empty regions to the North, where they attempt to create an independent country, which means war with France. But what if the UK decides to support them in war to annex them later. This could give a nice war in North America.
 
Lets say that for whatever reason, losing the Revolution and being forbidden by the British, a Stronger New France, a massively powerful Indian Nation, what would be the Development of the 13 States/Colonies if they were kept east of the Appalachains? Toward population, slavery, economics for the south, etc etc.
Note that the forbidding of moving west of the Appalachians was a temporary measure (although the guy making the announcement wasn't clear on that, 'cause HE wanted it to be permanent).

Basically the Pontiac rebellion gave the Brits major pause, and they wanted to figure out ways of ensuring an orderly settlement west, 'cause even they knew it wasn't going to be stopped.

If the 13 colonies get independence but their official boundary is the height of the Appalachians, things get messy. The Brits are going to support the Indians, and it's going to be bloody.

However, I don't see stopping the US unless significant settlement happens to fill in the area. (If the Indians can get there numbers up, they could hold SOME of the land, for instance....)
 
Though indeed. In my current TL "1627: The Ring of French" prevails. I did consider keeping them east of the Appalachains but it seems too unlikely to happen, yes I am going for French victories but not outright wank. Though New England for sure with Strong French Canada will wither on the vine (being surrounded by water, mountains, and French in a small amount of space).
 
As others have pointed out, American settlers WERE going to go over the mountains.

They only way to stop the area from being American settled and ultimately taken by the Americans is to have someone to stop them.

Treaties won't.

You need an established force on the ground in sufficient strength. This could, in theory, be French - but the French would need huge immigration into the Ohio valley - which means huge immigration into Canada first.

It could, in theory, be British - except where are THEY going to get the population (and if they did, wouldn't the new settlers be 'Americans' by another name.)

It could, in theory, be natives, but the natives were too low in population and too low in tech (agricultural as much as industrial).

So, it's pretty tough. Actually VERY tough.

Actually, the best bet might be in combination with another thread (majority Francophone Canada). If the initial population of Canada wasn't 2.5-3k, but rather, say, 10k, and if the Church didn't discourage movement west (which they did to keep their flock close at hand and under control), but rather encouraged it (to spread the Word and 'civilization') you might have gotten a strong enough French/Native alliance and population to rebuff the American advances. But that requires threading enough needles in a row to be a very low probability timeline. (Hmm.... Sounds like a challenge).
 
This is probably a worst-case scenario for the Native Americans. It was bad enough the British basically left them to suffer after they pulled out of the U.S. post-ARW, but in this case Americans are going to have no qualms whatsoever about taking their land since it's going to be continual assymetric warfare (if no one recognizes a trans-Appalachian claim for the U.S.).
 
Top